She seems purposely limited to no more than 5 minutes of screentime per episode, but for some reason, Munn's presence on-screen is always compelling. Watch, and you'll see....
olivia makes financial economics sound vaguely interesting, she seems so passionate when she does her lines, I wouldn't object to her being my lecturer
That's kinda of the point; economics ARE interesting! It's in the interest of the Establishment and banksters to fools us into thinking they're boring, so they can get away with robbery, because we aren't paying attention.
i've been thinking a lot about the Newsroom lately, and the way it juxtaposes "doing the news" and Will and Mac's relationship pretty much constantly. this scene stands out as a pretty effective example: we never see Mac at the conference and it never gets brought up again, this entire subplot is just here for the exchange "We cheated on the perfect guy with the guy who dumped us?" "...yes. We repealed Glass-Steagal." It's another frame of reference for why Will and Mac are the way they are, and I love it
@@DavidTSmith-jn5bs Yes. He did a lot of bad things, and as a Democrat I can call out his wrongdoings. He was corrupt. Whats ironic is most Republicans can't hold their representatives to that simple standard. I don't know how much more today's administration can hit their constituents in the face with the evidence of their corruption. Any more and it'll end up killing them... I wrote that sentence and realized It has killed people.
@@isnay2003 Believe me, I feel your pain. I wasn't slamming Clinton as Conservative Republicans did during his first term of office. I was pointing out that during his second term, he seemed to be preoccupied with passing laws that Republicans endorsed to help their rich friends. Probably because Clinton had "rich friends" as well but who knows. For years I was an independent until the current "Boob-in-Chief" was running for office. I voted for Bernie first, then I voted "Against Trump!" See what I did there?
It may have been passed by a Democrat president, but that's not the whole story. It was proposed by a Republican, rushed through the senate and the house with overwhelming bipartisan support, then voted on by a Democrat president. When both parties agree on something, it's probably going to screw over the masses.
@@DonCDXX If you read my follow-up posting, you would have seen that I noted that this was a republican bill that Clinton signed into law! I agree that this was an example of there being a ton of blame to go around in both parties. I was just pointing out it was a shock that Clinton signed the law, just as Mac was shocked later on this episode.
A little late but, I adore you for posting this! 😀 I love Olivia Munn & I enjoyed her very much as Sloane so, this is very much appreciated, thank you!!
The diffrence between a savings bank and an investment bank is in a savings bank your money desolves very slowly,in an investment bank your money disappears very quickly.
'Like Jenga, the tower gets taller, but also less stable' , I know Sloan is a char in a drama, but it's hard to deny just how accurate some of her statements have been proven to be.
While running down all the great things Glass-Stegall did to McKenzie, Sloan neglected to mention that GLBA (which effectively repealed Glass-Stegall) retroactively legalized the first bank mega-merger between CitiBank and Travelers in 1998...
That commercial bank v investment bank speech should be taught in preschool, grammar school, middle school, high school and put in the college introduction pamphlet, until it becomes part of human DNA.
I will NEVER NOT love Aaron Sorkin's writing. The quick-thinking, fast-paced, ever-changing subject dialogue always has me enrapt. As a Gemini, his writing style is totally perfect for my attention span, and easily followed without a single speed-bump. Just enough time for a snerk before another gem is spoken. 😁💗
Jenn Lawson omg, that’s exactly it! As a fellow Gemini, I’ve noticed for some time I really enjoy speedy wordy monologues that go back-and-forth and close on a different subject to prove a point, and also short quick intelligent banters between characters with a little sass. Though I’m usually more of a politics/legal drama fan (not many good ones around), I’ve found Marvelous Mrs Maisel has a nice tempo to the dialogue too.
@@user-nt6fy2jr3u Haven't entered that universe yet. Maybe I'll give it a try. Hands down, fave show is 'The West Wing'. My fave Sam Seaborn line is: "I could've countered that, but I had already moved on to other things in my head." 👍♊
Couple things: 1) A rhetorical question still needs a question mark. That's why they call it a question. 2) He could have vetoed it and it would have been political suicide for him. 3) I have nothing against Republicans. I've supported a few in the past. Nor do I hate Democrats. We're all Americans. 4) I'm for a modified version of Glass Steagall. Don't make assumptions. 5) Both liberals and conservatives have hard times seeing the truth when they're against something. Team effort.
The typo in the title makes this sound like a trailer for a horrible chick flick about a woman named Newsroom. “This Summer, Olivia Munn is... Newsroom!”
A woman who has to do addition and subtraction on her fingers. McKenzie is a Peabody Prize winning producer. She's brilliant about a lot of things. They had to give her some things that she wouldn't be good at, (math technology some people skills etc) otherwise we'd hate her as a character. She'd be too perfect. Also, she's fictional.
You do know what a rhetorical statement is, don't you? That was a rhetorical question. Did you notice the question mark? The way to distinguish between the two is "punctuation"
No major crashes there was some dips but they were never long-lived, Glass-steagle has been picked away at since the 70-80's but it wasn't fully repealed until the 90s and the 2008 market crash many would argue are the direct result of that.
Nothing ever came even close to the Great Depression when Glass-Steagle was first passed into law. There were downturns of course, particularly in the 70s and late 80s but nothing to rival the Great Depression. And Glass-Steagle wasn't the only firewall put in place to prevent another Worldwide Economic Melt Down. Additionally stock trading on margin was tightened up a great deal, the FDIC was created to ensure people wouldn't lose their live savings and the Federal Reserve has taken a much greater roll in managing the money supply than it did during the Great Depression. If the economy were a house and the house were sitting on pillars or posts than Glass-Steagle was one of several foundation posts that held up the house. When it was removed the economy did not completely collapse because there were other posts still in place. What it did was make the house less stable and more prone to swings between booms and busts. Sloan even alludes to this in comparing it to a Jenga Tower, saying that removing Glass-Steagle allowed the economy to grow faster (taller she says) but made it far more unstable.
was superhot when she was on attack of the show. now that shes more mainstream, she kindve regresses to fit in. water always evens itself out to the lowest level possible. makes a good poorman's angie harmon
Nils Franco She would've probably been more aware of Thomas Friedman, who's a living journalist and author, whereas Milton Friedman is the recently deceased economist. Considering how little she claims to know about economics, I'm thinking she meant Thomas Friedman.
His inability to admit when he's wrong, as shown with his repeated insistence that rhetorical questions don't need question marks, implies that he won't be able to admit the flaws in his political arguments, either.
This clip makes me think of a Margret Thatcher line, there is nothing in economics that can't be explained in terms of the house hold budget. eg leveraged buyouts are just fancy mortgages etc
Yes but as Sloan herself says of comparing balancing your personal checkbook being compared to balancing the Federal Budget that is the equivalent of comparing a drive to the corner grocery store to get milk to landing on the moon. The devil is always in the details.
As much as I love The Newsroom, I just can't stand popular media flippantly reducing something as complicated as the financial crisis into something as simple as "it happened because we repealed the Glass-Steagall Act."
If this doesn't say that completely, as Sloan discusses the election of Reagan and the beginning of the great movement towards deregulation. And let's be clear Glass-Steagall being repealed was a major fucking catastrophe. It is literally the turd that will not flush in the continuing economic meltdowns that have happened since then. But ultimately that turd was a symptom of deregulation like so many others. How many airlines have gone out of business since THAT industry was deregulated. How many small airlines were swallowed up by bigger airlines and how many of them big ones have merged together? And how many are left? Does anybody remember when the government last went trust busting? The last one I remember was when they broke up Ma Bell and I was a child when that happened. And all of the pieces of that company went right back to merging with each other. The whole point of trust busting and regulation are supposed to be A.) to give the little guy (whether he be a consumer or a competitor) a fair chance to thrive and survive and B.) to keep everybody safe and stable both on a macro level (the economy) and on a personal level (George Bailey).
You aren't wrong there. HOWEVER... every damn time something is attempted to be done about the problem we get some sort of SCOTUS ruling that knocks it on it's ass. Line item veto becomes law and SCOTUS invalidates the law. Campaign Finance Reform is enacted and SCOTUS passes Citizen's United where they claim that giving money is free speech. Obamacare calls for expansion of Medicaid to cover the poor and the indigent SCOTUS strikes that part of the law out. This shit just goes on and on and on forever...
A bit late, but wall street wouldn't have all of the countries money with which to gamble. That would likely create a more stable economic foundation, which would allow for more balanced growth while at the same time limiting wealth from being centralized, meaning a larger middle class, which would in turn create a more stable economic foundation, and so on... Simply put, it would help the middle class and the foundation of a solid economy is the middle class; i.e. not giving complete control over the economy to a small group.
@@nicholassmith7984 both you and Isaic02 are correct. And in fact the GOP in the 30s constantly called FDR and the Dems that passed Glass-Steagle Communist. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) the monied class drove the economy, the country and the entire damn world so far into the ditch in the Crash of 29 and the economic collapse that followed and the GOP and the Hoover administration were so comically inept at dealing with the issue that the vast majority of the country refused to listen to them. That's generally the level it has to fall to to get people to wake up enough to repudiate Big Business unregulated free trade lazier faire economic policies. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) the economic crashes we have dealt with since then have been shallow echoes of the chaos that was the Great Depression. We have been fat and happy for too many years and rather than a horrible crash we've been enduring a slow suffocation of the working and middle class instead. If you turn up the heat under a boiling pot slowly enough what's inside it won't realize it's being cooked until it's too late.
Research? I taught rhetoric and grammar for five years. Trust me on the question mark thing. As far as the other points, I think I'll retire from this conversation. We're going in circles. It's been fun and all, but I've had enough...you seem a little too angry to have a rational discussion. All the best to you.
How can she not balance a checking account. It's simple. You have a money in the account. You either take money out or put money in. When you take money out then what you have in the account goes down. When you add money it goes up. Not rocket science. When the amount you have in the account goes below zero you have no balance and have no money in your account to cover your checks. How can a person not be able to understand that.
We could all use this economics lesson. But we're all just going to worry about human relationships. Which are infinitely more complex and never solved by worrying.
To add to your point Glass Steegal was not repealed by a Republican President. President Clinton a liberal signed the repeal of the Glass Steegal act .
ok, greedy america dereg's the fed. poor america looses all their savings and then send their kids off to a war, started as a distraction from the clusterfuck at home, HBO breaks it down to the couch potatoes, ( poor america can no longer aford HBO) and the internet gen are more concerned with Olivia. she is pretty.
Newsroom was a... very gimmicky show. The entertainment factor, the thing that makes you go "wow I like that" isn't really the plot of the events, but the cartoonish way these people talk to one another. The same 2 tricks played over and over. It feels great in a 4 min youtube video, but an entire episode with such unrealistic line delivery ... nah. People call it "smart" only because it doesn't have a laughtrack, cause if it had it, it wouldn't feel any different than any other comedy tv show.
Sorkin managed to blame Reagan for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which happened under Bill Clinton 10 years after Regan left office. In fact, he doesn't even mention Clinton (in this scene), who said that G-S was "no longer appropriate". Sorkin is a great writer, but that is some serious bias.
At the end of this episode Sorkin does say Clinton Repealed GS Will and mac in wills office Mac “did you know it was it was Bill Clinton who repealed GS?” Will “Yes. Everyone knows that” Mac “well know everyone knows.” If you search newsroom Rudy scene you’ll find it.
@@Nogoodnames07 I know. However, that doesn't undo his bias for two reasons: 1. In the scene above, Sloan causally links Reagan's policy of deregulation with the repeal of G-S, which is a logical fallacy that Sorkin himself points out in the West Wing: the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. 2. Only Reagan is mentioned in the above scene as the repeal of G-S is discussed. That associates in the minds of the viewers the repeal of G-S and the subsequent economic crisis with Reagan alone. When it is revealed that Clinton was the one who actually signed the law, most everyone has already forgotten what G-S is, and only remember "Reagan = deregulation = Great Depression".
@@michaelhettrick8510 is there bias yes absolutely. I won't dispute that. But Reagan and his presidency created an environment of deregulation that carried on into the Bush and Clinton presidencies that followed. It is undeniable that many of the economic policies started under Reagan have bedeviled us as a country ever since then. And during the last 40 years we've seen one of the greatest transfers of wealth from the working and middle class to the upper class that the world has ever seen. Even Milton Friedman eventually repudiated trickle down economics.
I'm not your friend so don't call me champ. What is your point. The Republicans were for it but so were the Democrats. My point was that you can't blame this on the Republican agenda as a Democrat made it possible How does your point change that.
I believe in a completely free market economy free from any government regulation. I disagree with government prohibiting the combination of commercial and investment banks. I opt instead for a free market solution. If you don't like the combination of commercial and investment banks, don't keep your money in those banks that practice this. This forces banks to compete with one another for the business of consumers. Those that comply with the desires of consumers stay in business. Those that refuse go out of business.
Do you have any example of this working in reality? I am aware of the mass demonization of "government regulation" but in every era, the lack of regulation in the name of 'free market solutions' has yielded perverse results. There is a reason we had to regulate worker safety. There is a reason we had to regulate child labor. There is a reason we had to regulate environmental pollution/toxic dumping. There is a reason we had to regulate consumer protections from false advertising. Need I remind you that the financial collapse of 2009 was caused by a lack of regulation in the financial sector. This fatuously childish and naive idea that companies will curb profits and do the right thing for anyone other than themselves is retarded, and has never been demonstrated to work. What HAS worked are reasonable and effective regulations... like Glass-Steagall.
Stephen Campion "Do you have any example of this working in reality?" Sure. You can find thousands of businesses that fail as a result of not meeting consumer demand. In fact, the vast majority of businesses fail because of this. Only a handful are actually successful and even fewer actually remain so. One specific industry is that of green energy. Our government has literally wasted billions propping up solar, wind, and other more clean energy businesses that have gone bankrupt due to lack of consumer demand. . . . . "I am aware of the mass demonization of 'government regulation' but in every era, the lack of regulation in the name of 'free market solutions' has yielded perverse results." Like what? I frequently see government regulation having unintended negative consequences. . . . . "There is a reason we had to regulate worker safety." No; if a business is creating unsafe working conditions, it is the responsibility of the worker not to seek employment there and to work elsewhere. . . . . "There is a reason we had to regulate child labor." Actually, child labor was already almost nonexistent in the U.S. before any child labor laws were enacted. This was due to poorer families having their children help provide an income. Now, these same laws make it very difficult (if not impossible) for many children to work, earn an income, and gain many marketable skills through employment. They've essentially defined a large percentage of the population as unemployable, when many kids could contribute a great deal to society, particularly in the realm of information technology. There are numerous jobs going unfilled in IT and kids often know more about computers than their 40 or 50 year old counterparts, as they've grown up with the technology. Yet, most are denied any access to employment. Work teaches discipline, responsibility, the value of money, and other qualities that help kids to mature. If they are mistreated by an employer than it is their, and their parent's, responsibility to remove them from that job. Government need not get involved. . . . . "There is a reason we had to regulate environmental pollution/toxic dumping." Nope; if you don't like a business polluting, then don't buy from them. If people don't buy from them, then the business goes out of business. Also, if a business pollutes your person/property, then you should be free to seek legal action against said business to force them to stop infringing on your person/property. You can encourage others to do the same with things like class-action lawsuits. . . . . "There is a reason we had to regulate consumer protections from false advertising." False advertising is a form of fraud, So, yes, here I would agree that government action is warranted. Government should protect against basic infringement of rights to people's persons/property. You are not allowed to murder, rape, steal, commit fraud, or otherwise infringe on another individual's rights to their own person or property. Government should protect against such infringements through law enforcement, a justice system, and a military. Everything else, however, should be left to the people to decide for themselves. . . . . "Need I remind you that the financial collapse of 2009 was caused by a lack of regulation in the financial sector." Nope; people had the choice how they used their own money. They use it poorly and negative consequences ensue. Lack of regulation allows people and businesses to make poor choices. The result is a loss of money and many bad businesses going bankrupt. Problems come when government tries to prop up these businesses that should otherwise fail and when government allows people to make poor choices without consequence. . . . . "This fatuously childish and naive idea that companies will curb profits and do the right thing for anyone other than themselves is retarded," I didn't say they would curb profits. They won't. Businesses exist to make profit. That's kind of their entire purpose for existence. If businesses want to continue to make profits, then they must respond to consumer demand. If consumers demand they behave a certain way (not pollution, not mistreating employees, etc.), then businesses must respond or risk lose of consumers and therefore loss of profit.
Jonathan C. At its conception, the U.S. was largely free from government regulation. Why wouldn't I want to live in a completely free market capitalist economy?
John C You are unbelievably naive and detached from reality. First of all, when I asked if you've ever seen a lack of government regulation work, I wasn't talking about how many individual businesses fail... I was talking about you providing an example of a functioning national economy that was free from such regulations. For the sake of argument, I'll readily concede that in a ideal, utopian, butterflies-and-rainbows world, everything you've just described is how it *should* work. (By that same measure, communism is the best system of government ever conceived.) The reason that communism is beautiful on paper but fails in practice, and the reason that I flatly dismiss every one of your responses, is due to an unrealistic view of human nature and the way societies/economies work. Case in point: Your rebuttal about "just leave the job if they treat you poorly" is asinine, as it wrongly assumes that there are more jobs than people and thus it is the jobs that must be competitive. When there are more people than jobs, the jobs can cut as many corners as they want and people will still work there for lack of options. It's called supply and demand. Your anti-government regulation diatribe is untethered from reality or practical application.
John C And just because I had to double-take to see if you actually wrote this... " "...financial collapse of 2009 was caused by a lack of regulation..." Nope; people had the choice how they used their own money. They use it poorly and negative consequences ensue." THEY LIED!!! These businesses LIED to consumers and granted loans to people who could never conceivable pay them back, then *bet against their own customers to fail*! Public outrage at this realization did NOTHING to address the behavior, and these banks are DOING IT AGAIN!!!! *Edit: And do you know what prevented this from happening in the past, and what would completely prevent it from happening ever again? Regulations like Glass-Steagall!! /facepalm There is an effective monopoly in multiple industries as a result of mega-corps agreeing to cooperate and dominate the market. The public is deceived, manipulated, and robbed of any opportunity to make an informed choice; even if they could, there is insufficient competition to push for moral business practices. I'm seriously hoping that you are trolling...
"Kenzie!" I love that Sloan is the only one who calls Mac that
Me too. Like a little sister calling her big sister on BS in love...
Because they're friends 🥰
"You know what happened next?"
"We cheated on the guy with the guy who dumped us?"
"Yes. We repealed Glass Steagal"
Lmfaoooooooooooo
"do you have any human knowledge?" "I'm told I do not" so good.
One of the Top 10 lines in the show!!!
Olivia Munn explaining economics is the hottest thing I've seen in my life.
“You may be on to something”😂😂😂😂😂IM DEAD
olivia makes financial economics sound vaguely interesting, she seems so passionate when she does her lines, I wouldn't object to her being my lecturer
That's kinda of the point; economics ARE interesting! It's in the interest of the Establishment and banksters to fools us into thinking they're boring, so they can get away with robbery, because we aren't paying attention.
“You may be onto something.” Full bellied laughed at that one
i've been thinking a lot about the Newsroom lately, and the way it juxtaposes "doing the news" and Will and Mac's relationship pretty much constantly. this scene stands out as a pretty effective example: we never see Mac at the conference and it never gets brought up again, this entire subplot is just here for the exchange "We cheated on the perfect guy with the guy who dumped us?" "...yes. We repealed Glass-Steagal." It's another frame of reference for why Will and Mac are the way they are, and I love it
"We repealed Glass-Steagall. Why can't it be fixed?"
Corruption. Corruption is why.
What's ironic is that it wasn't a Republican president who repealed it! It was Clinton!
@@DavidTSmith-jn5bs Yes. He did a lot of bad things, and as a Democrat I can call out his wrongdoings. He was corrupt.
Whats ironic is most Republicans can't hold their representatives to that simple standard. I don't know how much more today's administration can hit their constituents in the face with the evidence of their corruption. Any more and it'll end up killing them...
I wrote that sentence and realized It has killed people.
@@isnay2003 Believe me, I feel your pain. I wasn't slamming Clinton as Conservative Republicans did during his first term of office. I was pointing out that during his second term, he seemed to be preoccupied with passing laws that Republicans endorsed to help their rich friends. Probably because Clinton had "rich friends" as well but who knows. For years I was an independent until the current "Boob-in-Chief" was running for office. I voted for Bernie first, then I voted "Against Trump!" See what I did there?
It may have been passed by a Democrat president, but that's not the whole story. It was proposed by a Republican, rushed through the senate and the house with overwhelming bipartisan support, then voted on by a Democrat president.
When both parties agree on something, it's probably going to screw over the masses.
@@DonCDXX If you read my follow-up posting, you would have seen that I noted that this was a republican bill that Clinton signed into law! I agree that this was an example of there being a ton of blame to go around in both parties. I was just pointing out it was a shock that Clinton signed the law, just as Mac was shocked later on this episode.
I love how well the analogies work
A little late but, I adore you for posting this! 😀 I love Olivia Munn & I enjoyed her very much as Sloane so, this is very much appreciated, thank you!!
thanks for uploading this!!!
The diffrence between a savings bank and an investment bank is in a savings bank your money desolves very slowly,in an investment bank your money disappears very quickly.
Sloan: "Do you know.......?"
Mac: "yes!"
Sloan: "Kenzie!"
Mac: "No......"
"Wait, are you saying that i don't have female friends or that you're not entirely female?" XDXDXD
"What do you think?" These two beautiful messed-up ladies are the BEST!
I actually learned so much from this one little piece of Sloan talking about the economy. :D LOL
Love the Paley center reference especially cuz i got to see the Newsroom panel at PaleyFest this year!!
I think a lot of what's going on in the world has to do with the economy.
-- You may be on to something.
LOL
'Like Jenga, the tower gets taller, but also less stable' , I know Sloan is a char in a drama, but it's hard to deny just how accurate some of her statements have been proven to be.
I want Sloan to teach me economics. I am also as inept in economic understanding as McKenzie Morgan McHale McAvoy is!
She's wrong (well Aaron Sorkin is wrong).
I want Sloan. The hell with the rest of it.
@@pauliewalnuts100 can you explain? :-)
@@bzch3105 The New Deal is bullshit. I'm in a bad way from covid so I don't have the energy to go into it.
While running down all the great things Glass-Stegall did to McKenzie, Sloan neglected to mention that GLBA (which effectively repealed Glass-Stegall) retroactively legalized the first bank mega-merger between CitiBank and Travelers in 1998...
That commercial bank v investment bank speech should be taught in preschool, grammar school, middle school, high school and put in the college introduction pamphlet, until it becomes part of human DNA.
This is a good history lesson
Yeah, Glass-Stegall does that to me too.
"You may be on to something" lol
I love how she genuinely asks: how long did it take you to learn???
Nope. She makes nerds look goood!
I will NEVER NOT love Aaron Sorkin's writing. The quick-thinking, fast-paced, ever-changing subject dialogue always has me enrapt. As a Gemini, his writing style is totally perfect for my attention span, and easily followed without a single speed-bump. Just enough time for a snerk before another gem is spoken. 😁💗
Agreed and agreed
Jenn Lawson omg, that’s exactly it! As a fellow Gemini, I’ve noticed for some time I really enjoy speedy wordy monologues that go back-and-forth and close on a different subject to prove a point, and also short quick intelligent banters between characters with a little sass. Though I’m usually more of a politics/legal drama fan (not many good ones around), I’ve found Marvelous Mrs Maisel has a nice tempo to the dialogue too.
@@user-nt6fy2jr3u Haven't entered that universe yet. Maybe I'll give it a try.
Hands down, fave show is 'The West Wing'. My fave Sam Seaborn line is: "I could've countered that, but I had already moved on to other things in my head." 👍♊
Joke well crafted
Arron Sorkin is a genius
Couple things:
1) A rhetorical question still needs a question mark. That's why they call it a question.
2) He could have vetoed it and it would have been political suicide for him.
3) I have nothing against Republicans. I've supported a few in the past. Nor do I hate Democrats. We're all Americans.
4) I'm for a modified version of Glass Steagall. Don't make assumptions.
5) Both liberals and conservatives have hard times seeing the truth when they're against something. Team effort.
abd btw, in Europe just after USA every country did the same, we have no more separation between commercial bank and investments banks.
Any West Wing fans think this feels a lot like CJ asking Sam to explain the Census?
1:20
- "Can we save the scolding Thomas Friedman?"
="Do you mean Paul Krugman?"
Why on earth didn't Sloan think of (Milton..) ?!
The typo in the title makes this sound like a trailer for a horrible chick flick about a woman named Newsroom. “This Summer, Olivia Munn is... Newsroom!”
Not enough props for you, have some of mine...
This show had the best FN writing on television. How it didn't survive baffles me.
It didn’t survive because the media didn’t like Sorkin airing their dirty laundry. So they conspired to kill the show.
A woman who has to do addition and subtraction on her fingers. McKenzie is a Peabody Prize winning producer. She's brilliant about a lot of things. They had to give her some things that she wouldn't be good at, (math technology some people skills etc) otherwise we'd hate her as a character. She'd be too perfect. Also, she's fictional.
If only Disney read this before creating Rey Palpiwalker
Sloan is absolutely right......SHE Makes Nerds Look Good
"... goooooooooooood."
Gotta say it right. :)
I'd tell her. But Olivia Munn's already well aware of all these things, I'm sure.
that was the exact point of her casting in the show on the show
3:53🥺🥺🥺
You do know what a rhetorical statement is, don't you? That was a rhetorical question. Did you notice the question mark? The way to distinguish between the two is "punctuation"
Everyone loves nerds. :)
WTF why are so many videos in the playlist are being Blocked for Germany ??!!
just curious; while Glass-Steagle was in effect, how many times did the world economy melt down?
722redtree that many
Postwar Europe was pretty rough through the 1950s
No major crashes there was some dips but they were never long-lived, Glass-steagle has been picked away at since the 70-80's but it wasn't fully repealed until the 90s and the 2008 market crash many would argue are the direct result of that.
Nothing ever came even close to the Great Depression when Glass-Steagle was first passed into law. There were downturns of course, particularly in the 70s and late 80s but nothing to rival the Great Depression. And Glass-Steagle wasn't the only firewall put in place to prevent another Worldwide Economic Melt Down. Additionally stock trading on margin was tightened up a great deal, the FDIC was created to ensure people wouldn't lose their live savings and the Federal Reserve has taken a much greater roll in managing the money supply than it did during the Great Depression. If the economy were a house and the house were sitting on pillars or posts than Glass-Steagle was one of several foundation posts that held up the house. When it was removed the economy did not completely collapse because there were other posts still in place. What it did was make the house less stable and more prone to swings between booms and busts. Sloan even alludes to this in comparing it to a Jenga Tower, saying that removing Glass-Steagle allowed the economy to grow faster (taller she says) but made it far more unstable.
You'll be in no danger of that
When she speaks Japanese.....
By biggest gripe is the correction on Thomas Friedman wouldn't be Paul Kraugman but Milton Friedman. Like going from Friedman to Krugman is just weird
You maybe on to something
Aaron Rodgers got her in her PRIME!
Important economic lessons are being sidelined for petty drama. There's a metaphor there somewhere.
I'm surprised it jumped from Thomas Friedman to Paul Krugman instead of to Milton Friedman.
I have a crush on sloan. I think i like smart girls.
was superhot when she was on attack of the show. now that shes more mainstream, she kindve regresses to fit in. water always evens itself out to the lowest level possible. makes a good poorman's angie harmon
Ironically, Sloan has knowledge of that at. Say her.
1934, 1942, 1967, 1978, 1994...
enough?
2008, 2011...enough
@@a.strain2786 2020
1:18
Wasn't Mac trying to say Milton Friedman, not Paul Krugman?
Nils Franco She would've probably been more aware of Thomas Friedman,
who's a living journalist and author,
whereas Milton Friedman is the recently deceased economist.
Considering how little she claims to know about economics,
I'm thinking she meant
Thomas Friedman.
Thomas Sowel + Milton Friedman = Thomas Friedman xd
His inability to admit when he's wrong, as shown with his repeated insistence that rhetorical questions don't need question marks, implies that he won't be able to admit the flaws in his political arguments, either.
At the behest of a Republican-controlled congress. It was a team effort, champ.
Okay?
This clip makes me think of a Margret Thatcher line, there is nothing in economics that can't be explained in terms of the house hold budget. eg leveraged buyouts are just fancy mortgages etc
Yes but as Sloan herself says of comparing balancing your personal checkbook being compared to balancing the Federal Budget that is the equivalent of comparing a drive to the corner grocery store to get milk to landing on the moon. The devil is always in the details.
As much as I love The Newsroom, I just can't stand popular media flippantly reducing something as complicated as the financial crisis into something as simple as "it happened because we repealed the Glass-Steagall Act."
If this doesn't say that completely, as Sloan discusses the election of Reagan and the beginning of the great movement towards deregulation. And let's be clear Glass-Steagall being repealed was a major fucking catastrophe. It is literally the turd that will not flush in the continuing economic meltdowns that have happened since then. But ultimately that turd was a symptom of deregulation like so many others. How many airlines have gone out of business since THAT industry was deregulated. How many small airlines were swallowed up by bigger airlines and how many of them big ones have merged together? And how many are left?
Does anybody remember when the government last went trust busting? The last one I remember was when they broke up Ma Bell and I was a child when that happened. And all of the pieces of that company went right back to merging with each other. The whole point of trust busting and regulation are supposed to be A.) to give the little guy (whether he be a consumer or a competitor) a fair chance to thrive and survive and B.) to keep everybody safe and stable both on a macro level (the economy) and on a personal level (George Bailey).
You didn't have to.
Notice how they say Reagan by name, but don't mention Clinton at all. Also, the repeal was passed overwhelmingly by both parties. Classic Sorkin
The end of this same episode it is said it was Clinton repeal
m.th-cam.com/video/0JNZj9daWbU/w-d-xo.html
You aren't wrong there. HOWEVER... every damn time something is attempted to be done about the problem we get some sort of SCOTUS ruling that knocks it on it's ass. Line item veto becomes law and SCOTUS invalidates the law. Campaign Finance Reform is enacted and SCOTUS passes Citizen's United where they claim that giving money is free speech. Obamacare calls for expansion of Medicaid to cover the poor and the indigent SCOTUS strikes that part of the law out. This shit just goes on and on and on forever...
Did you watch the show? They literally do, it’s just not in this fan edit.
Fuck no, geeky turn ons are quite real.
Wait, so glass seagal put men on the moon?
no, it was an aluminum eagle, the glass seagull just financed it.
@@mavoc3094 That was an amazing comment!
@@mavoc3094 i need to give you multiple thumbs up sir!
The word blog is not necessary in your title.
What would happen if they re-instated the Glass-Steagle act?
A bit late, but wall street wouldn't have all of the countries money with which to gamble. That would likely create a more stable economic foundation, which would allow for more balanced growth while at the same time limiting wealth from being centralized, meaning a larger middle class, which would in turn create a more stable economic foundation, and so on...
Simply put, it would help the middle class and the foundation of a solid economy is the middle class; i.e. not giving complete control over the economy to a small group.
The entire Republican Party will team up with Fox News to call you a communist.
@@nicholassmith7984 both you and Isaic02 are correct. And in fact the GOP in the 30s constantly called FDR and the Dems that passed Glass-Steagle Communist. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how you look at it) the monied class drove the economy, the country and the entire damn world so far into the ditch in the Crash of 29 and the economic collapse that followed and the GOP and the Hoover administration were so comically inept at dealing with the issue that the vast majority of the country refused to listen to them. That's generally the level it has to fall to to get people to wake up enough to repudiate Big Business unregulated free trade lazier faire economic policies. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on how you look at it) the economic crashes we have dealt with since then have been shallow echoes of the chaos that was the Great Depression. We have been fat and happy for too many years and rather than a horrible crash we've been enduring a slow suffocation of the working and middle class instead. If you turn up the heat under a boiling pot slowly enough what's inside it won't realize it's being cooked until it's too late.
Kinda condescending, ain't ya. I agree with all the other stuff.
Research? I taught rhetoric and grammar for five years. Trust me on the question mark thing.
As far as the other points, I think I'll retire from this conversation. We're going in circles. It's been fun and all, but I've had enough...you seem a little too angry to have a rational discussion. All the best to you.
How can she not balance a checking account.
It's simple.
You have a money in the account.
You either take money out or put money in.
When you take money out then what you have in the account goes down.
When you add money it goes up.
Not rocket science.
When the amount you have in the account goes below zero you have no balance and have no money in your account to cover your checks.
How can a person not be able to understand that.
She is a TV character, please. These scenes won't be as fun if she wasn't new to the subject! It's all part of the show. :)
That's actually not a description of balancing a checkbook, but ok...
We could all use this economics lesson. But we're all just going to worry about human relationships. Which are infinitely more complex and never solved by worrying.
To add to your point Glass Steegal was not repealed by a Republican President.
President Clinton a liberal signed the repeal of the Glass Steegal act .
ok, greedy america dereg's the fed. poor america looses all their savings and then send their kids off to a war, started as a distraction from the clusterfuck at home, HBO breaks it down to the couch potatoes, ( poor america can no longer aford HBO) and the internet gen are more concerned with Olivia. she is pretty.
and Awomen
Newsroom was a... very gimmicky show. The entertainment factor, the thing that makes you go "wow I like that" isn't really the plot of the events, but the cartoonish way these people talk to one another. The same 2 tricks played over and over. It feels great in a 4 min youtube video, but an entire episode with such unrealistic line delivery ... nah. People call it "smart" only because it doesn't have a laughtrack, cause if it had it, it wouldn't feel any different than any other comedy tv show.
Sorkin managed to blame Reagan for the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which happened under Bill Clinton 10 years after Regan left office. In fact, he doesn't even mention Clinton (in this scene), who said that G-S was "no longer appropriate".
Sorkin is a great writer, but that is some serious bias.
At the end of this episode Sorkin does say Clinton Repealed GS
Will and mac in wills office
Mac “did you know it was it was Bill Clinton who repealed GS?”
Will “Yes. Everyone knows that”
Mac “well know everyone knows.”
If you search newsroom Rudy scene you’ll find it.
Here ya go.
m.th-cam.com/video/0JNZj9daWbU/w-d-xo.html
@@Nogoodnames07 I know. However, that doesn't undo his bias for two reasons:
1. In the scene above, Sloan causally links Reagan's policy of deregulation with the repeal of G-S, which is a logical fallacy that Sorkin himself points out in the West Wing: the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.
2. Only Reagan is mentioned in the above scene as the repeal of G-S is discussed. That associates in the minds of the viewers the repeal of G-S and the subsequent economic crisis with Reagan alone. When it is revealed that Clinton was the one who actually signed the law, most everyone has already forgotten what G-S is, and only remember "Reagan = deregulation = Great Depression".
@@Nogoodnames07 the man can write a scene. Can he ever.
@@michaelhettrick8510 is there bias yes absolutely. I won't dispute that. But Reagan and his presidency created an environment of deregulation that carried on into the Bush and Clinton presidencies that followed. It is undeniable that many of the economic policies started under Reagan have bedeviled us as a country ever since then. And during the last 40 years we've seen one of the greatest transfers of wealth from the working and middle class to the upper class that the world has ever seen. Even Milton Friedman eventually repudiated trickle down economics.
I'm not your friend so don't call me champ.
What is your point.
The Republicans were for it but so were the Democrats.
My point was that you can't blame this on the Republican agenda as a Democrat made it possible
How does your point change that.
I believe in a completely free market economy free from any government regulation. I disagree with government prohibiting the combination of commercial and investment banks. I opt instead for a free market solution. If you don't like the combination of commercial and investment banks, don't keep your money in those banks that practice this. This forces banks to compete with one another for the business of consumers. Those that comply with the desires of consumers stay in business. Those that refuse go out of business.
Do you have any example of this working in reality? I am aware of the mass demonization of "government regulation" but in every era, the lack of regulation in the name of 'free market solutions' has yielded perverse results.
There is a reason we had to regulate worker safety.
There is a reason we had to regulate child labor.
There is a reason we had to regulate environmental pollution/toxic dumping.
There is a reason we had to regulate consumer protections from false advertising.
Need I remind you that the financial collapse of 2009 was caused by a lack of regulation in the financial sector. This fatuously childish and naive idea that companies will curb profits and do the right thing for anyone other than themselves is retarded, and has never been demonstrated to work.
What HAS worked are reasonable and effective regulations... like Glass-Steagall.
Stephen Campion "Do you have any example of this working in reality?"
Sure. You can find thousands of businesses that fail as a result of not meeting consumer demand. In fact, the vast majority of businesses fail because of this. Only a handful are actually successful and even fewer actually remain so.
One specific industry is that of green energy. Our government has literally wasted billions propping up solar, wind, and other more clean energy businesses that have gone bankrupt due to lack of consumer demand.
. . . .
"I am aware of the mass demonization of 'government regulation' but in every era, the lack of regulation in the name of 'free market solutions' has yielded perverse results."
Like what? I frequently see government regulation having unintended negative consequences.
. . . .
"There is a reason we had to regulate worker safety."
No; if a business is creating unsafe working conditions, it is the responsibility of the worker not to seek employment there and to work elsewhere.
. . . .
"There is a reason we had to regulate child labor."
Actually, child labor was already almost nonexistent in the U.S. before any child labor laws were enacted.
This was due to poorer families having their children help provide an income.
Now, these same laws make it very difficult (if not impossible) for many children to work, earn an income, and gain many marketable skills through employment.
They've essentially defined a large percentage of the population as unemployable, when many kids could contribute a great deal to society, particularly in the realm of information technology.
There are numerous jobs going unfilled in IT and kids often know more about computers than their 40 or 50 year old counterparts, as they've grown up with the technology. Yet, most are denied any access to employment.
Work teaches discipline, responsibility, the value of money, and other qualities that help kids to mature.
If they are mistreated by an employer than it is their, and their parent's, responsibility to remove them from that job. Government need not get involved.
. . . .
"There is a reason we had to regulate environmental pollution/toxic dumping."
Nope; if you don't like a business polluting, then don't buy from them. If people don't buy from them, then the business goes out of business.
Also, if a business pollutes your person/property, then you should be free to seek legal action against said business to force them to stop infringing on your person/property. You can encourage others to do the same with things like class-action lawsuits.
. . . .
"There is a reason we had to regulate consumer protections from false advertising."
False advertising is a form of fraud, So, yes, here I would agree that government action is warranted.
Government should protect against basic infringement of rights to people's persons/property. You are not allowed to murder, rape, steal, commit fraud, or otherwise infringe on another individual's rights to their own person or property.
Government should protect against such infringements through law enforcement, a justice system, and a military. Everything else, however, should be left to the people to decide for themselves.
. . . .
"Need I remind you that the financial collapse of 2009 was caused by a lack of regulation in the financial sector."
Nope; people had the choice how they used their own money. They use it poorly and negative consequences ensue.
Lack of regulation allows people and businesses to make poor choices. The result is a loss of money and many bad businesses going bankrupt.
Problems come when government tries to prop up these businesses that should otherwise fail and when government allows people to make poor choices without consequence.
. . . .
"This fatuously childish and naive idea that companies will curb profits and do the right thing for anyone other than themselves is retarded,"
I didn't say they would curb profits. They won't. Businesses exist to make profit. That's kind of their entire purpose for existence.
If businesses want to continue to make profits, then they must respond to consumer demand.
If consumers demand they behave a certain way (not pollution, not mistreating employees, etc.), then businesses must respond or risk lose of consumers and therefore loss of profit.
Jonathan C. At its conception, the U.S. was largely free from government regulation.
Why wouldn't I want to live in a completely free market capitalist economy?
John C You are unbelievably naive and detached from reality.
First of all, when I asked if you've ever seen a lack of government regulation work, I wasn't talking about how many individual businesses fail... I was talking about you providing an example of a functioning national economy that was free from such regulations.
For the sake of argument, I'll readily concede that in a ideal, utopian, butterflies-and-rainbows world, everything you've just described is how it *should* work.
(By that same measure, communism is the best system of government ever conceived.)
The reason that communism is beautiful on paper but fails in practice, and the reason that I flatly dismiss every one of your responses, is due to an unrealistic view of human nature and the way societies/economies work.
Case in point: Your rebuttal about "just leave the job if they treat you poorly" is asinine, as it wrongly assumes that there are more jobs than people and thus it is the jobs that must be competitive. When there are more people than jobs, the jobs can cut as many corners as they want and people will still work there for lack of options. It's called supply and demand.
Your anti-government regulation diatribe is untethered from reality or practical application.
John C And just because I had to double-take to see if you actually wrote this...
" "...financial collapse of 2009 was caused by a lack of regulation..."
Nope; people had the choice how they used their own money. They use it poorly and negative consequences ensue."
THEY LIED!!! These businesses LIED to consumers and granted loans to people who could never conceivable pay them back, then *bet against their own customers to fail*!
Public outrage at this realization did NOTHING to address the behavior, and these banks are DOING IT AGAIN!!!!
*Edit: And do you know what prevented this from happening in the past, and what would completely prevent it from happening ever again? Regulations like Glass-Steagall!! /facepalm
There is an effective monopoly in multiple industries as a result of mega-corps agreeing to cooperate and dominate the market. The public is deceived, manipulated, and robbed of any opportunity to make an informed choice; even if they could, there is insufficient competition to push for moral business practices.
I'm seriously hoping that you are trolling...
장점. 실력. 15년. college. grad. doc. post doc. practical experience. (01:30)